POS 063_01

ASSIGNMENT 06:

How did Martin Luther, Francisco Suarez and Baruch Spinoza view the separation
of Church and State?

● Martin Luther's views on the relationship between Church and State evolved over
time. Initially, he emphasized a distinction between the spiritual authority of the Church
and the temporal authority of the State, advocating that the Church should stay out of
secular governance and the State should protect the Church's religious freedom.
However, he also believed that the State had a role in upholding moral and Christian
values, promoting a harmonious relationship between the two institutions. Unlike later
Enlightenment thinkers, Luther's views were not as clear-cut, as he did not fully endorse
a strict separation of Church and State and believed in some cooperation between them.
● Francisco Suarez believed in the legitimacy of both Church and State, ordained by
God, but with distinct spheres of authority. He emphasized the autonomy of the State in
temporal matters and the Church's authority in spiritual matters. Suarez advocated for a
cooperative relationship, where the State respected the Church's spiritual authority, and
the Church acknowledged the State's role in civil governance. His views emphasized
collaboration for the common good, with secular rulers seeking guidance from religious
authorities to ensure justice and moral values prevailed.
● Baruch Spinoza was a strong advocate for the strict separation of Church and State,
and his views significantly influenced Enlightenment thinkers. He believed that religion
should be a private matter and that the State should not play a role in regulating or
enforcing religious beliefs. Spinoza argued for religious freedom and the removal of
religious authorities' influence over political matters. His ideas paved the way for the
secularization of the State and the development of modern notions of religious tolerance
and the separation of Church and State. Spinoza took an even more radical stance,
emphasizing complete separation between church and state, asserting that religion
should not influence political decisions or governance in any way. According to Spinoza's
philosophy of rationalism, human affairs should be guided by reason alone, free from
interference from religious dogma.

In summary, Martin Luther initially advocated for a cooperative but distinct

relationship between Church and State, emphasizing the State's role in upholding moral values.
Francisco Suarez promoted cooperation and mutual respect between both institutions, with the
State handling temporal matters and the Church overseeing spiritual affairs. Baruch Spinoza, in
contrast, championed a strict separation of Church and State, advocating for religious freedom
and the exclusion of religious influence from politics, emphasizing the importance of reason in
governance. These differing views demonstrate the evolving and complex nature of the
Church-State relationship throughout history.
What is the difference between the “Social Contract” of Thomas Hobbes and that
of “John Locke’s”

The concept of the social contract has been a subject of great debate among philosophers
throughout history. Two prominent figures in this discourse are Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke, who both proposed their own versions of the social contract theory. While they share
some similarities, their ideas differ significantly.

Hobbes, in his work "Leviathan," argued that humans are inherently selfish and
driven by self-interest. According to him, individuals enter into a social contract to
escape the state of nature, which he described as a constant state of war. In this
contract, people surrender their rights to a sovereign authority who ensures peace
and security. Hobbes believed that absolute power was necessary for maintaining
order.

On the other hand, Locke's perspective on the social contract emphasized individual
rights and limited government power. In his book "Two Treatises of Government," he
posited that people form societies to protect their natural rights – life, liberty, and
property – which cannot be taken away by any governing body. Unlike Hobbes'
authoritarian approach, Locke advocated for a government with consent from its
citizens and believed in the right to rebel against oppressive rulers.

In summary, while both Hobbes and Locke acknowledged the need for a social
contract to establish order in society, they differed in their views on human nature
and government authority. Hobbes emphasized absolute power as essential for maintaining
peace, whereas Locke prioritized individual rights and limited government control. These
contrasting perspectives continue to shape political philosophy today.

Using either the social contract of Thomas Hobbes or John Locke, can you justify
the Confidential fund of the Office of the Vice President?

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's social contract theories offer contrasting perspectives on the
role and power of government. Hobbes argues that individuals enter into a social contract to
establish a strong central authority, ensuring order and security. The Vice President, as part of
the executive branch, requires access to discretionary funds to respond swiftly to unforeseen
circumstances or emergencies. Locke's social contract theory emphasizes individual rights and
limited government intervention, which could justify a confidential fund in the office of the Vice
President if used transparently and solely for public welfare purposes. The existence of such a
fund depends on the interpretation of these philosophical principles in relation to contemporary
political realities.